DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum 8 U.S. Attorneys fired by Atty.Gen. Gonzales...petty politics???

C'mon he is a politician. Actually that's really not true he is more of a puppet master. If you want me to say he is scum I will. He is scum. The thing is he is not any different than his counterparts on the Democratic side. I used to try to make excuses for people in my party, afterall I supported them so how could they be so devious, even evil. I stopped the fact is they all are pretty much scum, so I don't even listen to this crap anymore.

When I see people attack them using the most biased sources ( that would be you on many occasions) it makes me almost want to defend them. Is much as you go on and about all this crap I can only come to the conclusion that you are actually trying to change peoples minds. Nothing wrong with that at all but if you use links that spell out such obvious biases people are going to just laugh.

I do think you have merit in many of the topics you bring up. It is kind of funny to me how many stinkin' stories you post and how hard you argue on every single thing. Kinda reminds me of the Clinton days when every day there would be a new scandal brought up that was by far the most horrendous thing ever.

Well, it's important for the Dims to bring all these allegations out now for 2 reasons. First, it hides their buying of votes on the military budget (it's gone under the radar because everyone is focusing on the LEGAL TERMINATIONS of at will employees) and it sets them up for the 08 elections. It is very much like the Clinton days with a couple of exceptions. Clinton commited a crime in lying under oath and when HE so quickly dismissed 92 federal investigators, it stopped the federal prosecutor that was investigating White Water at the time. Otherwise, it's very similar in political motivation.

I will say that I do welcome investigations into this White House. From my Patriotic perspective,I hope every investigation that is done comes back clean as a whistle. That absolutely no crimes have been commited. Because the office of the president has had enough black eyes in recent history. From Nixon to Clinton,our nation has been embarrased more than once by our nations leaders.

Anyone who thinks I WANT Bush to "come up dirty" in any of this is dead wrong! For you see,I put far more value in the history of my nation and the history of the presidency,than I do my personal "belief" about this one president. My nation and its integrity come before my feelings about any small group of people. Now that's the big picture for me from my Patriotic viewpoint.

However,we've seen how power corrupts.The most recent examples are the democrats during the years they had control the first six years of the Clinton administration. Corruption ran rampant. The GOP used that in the elections to help take over power and rightfully so. But now I think we are seeing the same effect with the GOP because of their monopoly of power for the last six years. At least things are leaning in that direction to this point.

And I feel untill many of these questions are answerred,there will be a huge cloud over this administration and its legacy throughout history. And I don't want to see that. I've seen enough of that in my life with Nixon and Clinton. So I'm glad this administration is now facing oversight. And if questions and suspicious actions surface,I want it looked into. Because if this administration plans to go into the history books with a clean slate,it must clear up questions that loom around it.

And I don't see how refusing to testify under oath and seemingly try to avoid and deflect many of these questions as any way to try to show the people of the United States that you are willing to pass the litmus test of proof to clear up these questions.

JMHO

"They weren't lying to the media,political cronies,but to congress. You don't think lying to members of congress when being questioned is worthy of investigation. You don't believe that's a crime in and of itself?"

No I don't think it is a crime in and of itself. Were they sworn in and under oath when they lied or spread misinformation? If it is they will be charged...you don't believe that the Dems are against charging the Bush Admin. with any crime that they believe they are guilty of...do you?
If they have commited a crime...try them in court and let us see their answers.

That is the way the legal system works.

No I don't think they have a problem with it. But you seem to be skipping a few steps?

Firstly,the claim made to members of congress was that "It was not political. It did not involve the White House"

Now to find out if this is a lie,you must investigate the truthfullness of those assertions. In order to investigate it,you must subpeana witnesses. That's the general process of an investigation to "find out" if a crime has been commited isn't it?


Here ya go............................

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001

Were they under oath? Was Congress in session? If not, it doesn't matter if they lied or not....unless of course you are on a political witch hunt, which we all know you are.

Yeah,the law I quoted above your post doesn't exist Coach.

It says that if you lie to a member of Congress while not under oath and Concgress not being in session, it's a crime? GMAB, are you really THAT desperate, Pit? Obviously, you are, but still.

When Democrats challenged the firings, Justice officials assured Congress the decisions were not politically coordinated with the White House and were based on "performance" issues.
It wasn't true, as Sampson's e-mails later showed. Sampson quit, but Democrats were outraged, questioning if they had been misled and have vowed subpoenas if necessary, including one for Sampson, to find out.

http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5464508

I LOVE how you avoid the question, Pit. WAS CONGRESS IN SESSION OR WAS ANYONE UNDER OATH? Yes or no. You are trying your hardest to stretch the law to fit your pathetic argument. If we go by your "interpretation", and I'm using the word kindly, then if I were talking to my congressmen and he asked me about one of my employees being terminated and I lied to him, I would be committing a crime? Please, you are reeking of desperation and laughable stretches for your witch hunt.

OK Pit...I admit that " I, Rootntootnwooten, was asked by Congress whether the firing were political. I stated that they were not.

I understand that I am now under oath and must admit that there was efficiency issues as well as political reasons for some of these terminations.

I am not completely sure what percentage to assign to politics and what percentage to assign to lack of efficiency but I was mistaken before. I am sorry to have not been as aware as I should have been and therefore I was not as accurate in my response as I perhaps should have been."

So, Pit, how much prison time do I get????

Jeesh Coach,it's not hard to find. ut since you can't seem to...............................


Ex-Utahn resigns amid D.C. scandal

Documents link him to firing of 8 U.S. attorneys

By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — Former Utah-based attorney and Brigham Young University graduate D. Kyle Sampson resigned Monday as chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the midst of a growing scandal involving eight fired U.S. attorneys.

Sampson, who almost became Utah's U.S. attorney, had a federal political career that included stops in the U.S. Congress, the White House and the Justice Department.
Democrats in the House and Senate plan for hearings and investigations into what really led to the firings of the U.S. attorneys and who were the major players.
Justice Department officials have testified before Congress that decisions to fire the attorneys were based on the individual attorneys' job performances without any input from the White House.

Did you get that Coach? Did you read that Coach? They testified before Congress falsely from what it appears Coach. That's what they're trying to investigate.

But documents released by the Justice Department to the House Judiciary Committee show Sampson had multiple e-mail conversations with White House counsel Harriet Miers and other officials in deciding — and sometimes listing — which attorneys should go.
Gonzales dismissed calls for his resignation at a press conference Tuesday but admitted that "mistakes were made" and will be corrected so they will not happen again.
"Obviously, I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information — was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress," Gonzales said.
Upon his resignation, Sampson admitted he did not tell his bosses about the extent of his many discussions with the White House about removing the prosecutors, which led to incomplete testimony before Congress.
A call to Sampson's cell phone Tuesday was not returned.
Sampson advised the White House that "there are practical obstacles" to following a proposed plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys. That comment was made in a Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail marked as "treat as confidential" and sent to Miers and Bill Kelley, another White House official.
In the e-mail, Sampson said the proposed firings "would cause significant disruption to the work of the Department of Justice." Among other reasons, he said it would be hard to find suitable replacements quickly and have the Senate confirm the replacements fast enough. He said none of the obstacles "are insuperable" but that "a limited number of U.S. attorneys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing."
Subsequent e-mails talk of attorneys being "pushed out" and who "we now consider pushing out." A Nov. 15, 2006, e-mail to Miers contains a detailed five-step plan on how to inform the attorneys that they have been fired, as well as instructions to "prepare to withstand political upheaval."
The Justice Department eventually fired U.S. attorneys in Albuquerque, N.M.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Las Vegas; Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix; San Diego; San Francisco; and Seattle.
The e-mails do not say how those attorneys were chosen for termination. But there are allegations the White House picked attorneys who had not been working in accordance with its beliefs and then made the firings look like they were due to poor performance reviews.
Sampson, who graduated from BYU in 1993, had worked at the Justice Department since 2003, when he was appointed counselor to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Gonzales appointed Sampson to be his chief of staff in 2005. He had been serving as deputy chief of staff and counselor since February 2005.
Sampson had also served as chairman of the Justice Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property and as a special assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Gerald Herbert, Associated PressAttorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed calls for his resignation at a news conference Tuesday. Before going to the Justice Department he was an associate counsel to President Bush from 1999 to 2001. He also served on the Bush transition team when the president first took office to provide legal advice to the incoming administration. Prior to going to the White House, he was a counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"There is a small moment in time when I can engage in this sort of public service," Sampson said on the BYU Alumni Web page. "I know it will come to an end, so that makes the long hours worthwhile."
He practiced law at the Salt Lake City law firm of Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless and clerked for Judge Karen J. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. He earned his law degree from the University of Chicago Law School.
In 2006, Sampson was in the middle of a debate as who would replace Paul Warner, U.S. attorney for Utah. The White House and Justice Department pushed for Sampson, while Hatch and other senators wanted Brett Tolman. Tolman eventually won the formal nomination .
Although he finds himself in the middle of a scandal, friends of Sampson have nothing but good things to say about him.
Sheldon Bradshaw, chief counsel for the Food and Drug Administration, has known Sampson since 1996 when the two clerked together for Williams.
"Kyle is just a brilliant guy," Bradshaw said. "He is very conscientious and completely and totally a straight shooter ... I don't know anyone that is more of a straight shooter than Kyle Sampson."
Bradshaw not only worked with Sampson but ended up renting a duplex directly next door to the Sampson family while working in South Carolina.
Bradshaw and Sampson's paths crossed again on the Bush transition team and also when Sampson worked at the White House. The two live about a block from each other now.
Bradshaw said Sampson has had a number of high profile jobs in the administration, "which is hard to do without being bright and you just have to have the highest character."
Tim Flanigan, a former White House deputy counsel, praised Sampson and was surprised by his resignation. He said Sampson was "a fine lawyer, a brilliant legal mind and an honest man."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributing: The Associated Press,

http://www.deseretmorningnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660203118,00.html

"Justice Department officials have testified before Congress that decisions to fire the attorneys were based on the individual attorneys' job performances without any input from the White House."

Are you stating that failure to follow instructions/explicit suggestions does not equate to failure in the job performance of these attorneys? Do these instructions have to have come directly from the White House? Maybe it was Richard Armitedge or Robert Novak or Joe Wilson or Sandy Berger who passed on the instructions.

Documents show Gonzales approved firings

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

On Friday night, however, the Justice Department revealed Gonzales' participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

The firings of eight prosecutors has since led to a political firestorm and calls for his ouster.

At that meeting, the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials discussed a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Gonzales' aides said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was drafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week.

Another Justice aide closely involved in the dismissals, White House liaison Monica Goodling, has also taken a leave of absence, two officials said.

The five-step plan approved by Gonzales involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval, naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.

Six of the eight prosecutors who were ultimately ordered to resign are named in the plan.

The department released more than 280 documents Friday night, including e-mails, calendar pages and memos to try to satisfy Congress' demands for details on how the firings were handled — and whether they were politically motivated. There are no other meetings on the calendar pages released between that Nov. 27 and Dec. 7, when the attorneys were fired, to indicate Gonzales participated in other discussions on the matter, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said.

Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers — where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Later, he added: "I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated."

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Asked to explain the difference between Gonzales' comments and his schedule, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the attorney general had relied on Sampson to draw up the plans on the firings.

"The attorney general has made clear that he charged Mr. Sampson with directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where for one reason or another the department believed that we could do better," Roehrkasse said. "He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced."

Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said. The department's inspector general also will participate in that investigation.

Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.

"Clearly the attorney general was not telling the whole truth, but what is he trying to hide?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev.

"If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record):

"This puts the attorney general front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress."

Presidential spokesman Trey Bohn referred questions to the Justice Department, saying White House officials had not seen the documents.

The developments were not what Republicans, skittish about new revelations, had hoped.

Earlier Friday, a staunch White House ally, Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), summoned White House counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill and told him he wanted "no surprises."

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,'" Cornyn said.

Sampson will appear Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. "We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys," Sampson attorney Brad Berenson wrote in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

New e-mails released Friday indicate that some of Gonzales' most trusted advisers were kept out of the loop in the firings. Scolinos apparently learned about the plans to dismiss attorneys on Nov. 17, 2006 — nearly two years after Sampson and the White House first began talking about replacing prosecutors.

Democrats question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies."

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.



web page

So how much prison time do I get or how much time for Gonzo????

Oh, it's not about jail time??? Only political embarrassment??? Only politics??? Hmmm....that's what all of these things are about. No real substance of important national interest but rather can we disclose how lousy political manuvering can be at the top levels.

Well, Pit, I'm still waiting for you to show how this is a crime by Rove, Gonzales, or Bush, as you keep saying they need investigated and put under oath. Once again, please provide ONE LAW that was borken when the attorneys were terminated. That's what you originally claimed was such a terrible crime. I realize that you have been shown that it wasn't so you now must shift your agenda so you can still continue to try to smear the administration. Thanks for being so transparent about it.

Mr. Pit you continue to claim that it is illegal to lie to Congress. I agree inso far as premeditated lies offered totally to hide an illegal act should be a crime.
The fact remains that to prove a lie...one must prove the party involved was aware that the answer given is a complete falsehood.
Failure to act upon superiors concerns is a failure in job performance...simply because you and I may disapprove of the concerns is irrelevant and between the superior person and the appointee.
If it is proven that these guys were removed for political purposes [which we all agree upon] are the justice dept. guys to be convicted of not telling the truth concerning a common occurence?

The reason for the stubborn refusal to force underlings to testify under oath at a "dog and pony show" with Chuckie,Pat and big Teddy's committee is simple. The President does not want a precedent set which would force their private planning sessions aired on a regular basis...makes it hard to gradually build a consensus when differing opinions are held early on in any process.

I think if you go back and read the law pertaining to this matter,you'll see that is is a crime to "Lie to Congress".

And now,as you have mentioned,we need to investigate these things. Gonzales too,coraberated these Justice department officials story and emails have come to light that this is not true.

So it appears that there is a cover up on the part of the Justice department. From point A to point Z,everyone who's names are beginning to show through the emails were involved,have been claiming all along not to have been.

So that's where we stand. And I think Congress needs to find out why these Justice Department officials appeared to have lied,and Gonzales,Rove and others. The congress wants to know why everyone is backing false claims and want to get to the bottom of it in order to figure out wheather or not criminal acts have been commited.

And in order to do such an investigation,it's their duty to issue subpeanas and question people that have made false claims in order to carry out an investigation. But untill Rove and others come clean and are willing to testify to clear up these questions,it begs to question what it is they're trying to hide.

For Gonzales, More Records, and Questions

web page

WASHINGTON, March 24 — An accumulating body of evidence is at odds with the statements of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he played little role in the deliberations over the dismissal of eight United States attorneys.

Mr. Gonzales has said he did not take part in any discussions of the dismissal effort, and left the planning and execution of the removals up to D. Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff.

But e-mail messages and other documents released by the Justice Department in recent days suggest that Mr. Gonzales was told of the dismissal plan on at least two occasions, in 2005 when the plan was devised and again in late 2006 shortly before the firings were carried out.

The conflicts between the documentary record and Mr. Gonzales’s version of events have contributed to an erosion of support for him in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have called for him to step down. They have also fed suspicions by some Democrats that the ousters, from the start, may have been orchestrated by the White House, and most particularly, by Karl Rove, the White House political adviser.

The disparities are giving Democrats in Congress a rationale to transform what started as an inquiry focused on the ouster plan itself into a much broader and perhaps even more damaging look at misleading, or at least inaccurate, statements by the Bush administration figures involved in the effort.

“It is hard to see, given what the documents say and given what he said before, how you can square the two,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who is leading the inquiry in the Senate. “An attorney general, more than any other cabinet official, has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Mr. Bush, in his Saturday radio address, again came to the defense of Mr. Gonzales, his longtime friend and legal adviser. “I strongly support the attorney general in this decision” to remove the United States attorneys, President Bush said.

Mr. Bush also renewed his offer to make Mr. Rove, the former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and two other White House officials available to Congressional investigators for private interviews. But he once again refused Congress’s request for formal testimony from his aides under oath, arguing it would violate his executive prerogative.

“Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people’s business,” Mr. Bush said.

But for Democrats, the latest developments have only given them a renewed reason to push for sworn testimony, as they pointed to the inaccurate or misleading statements made by the Justice Department or the White House on the firings, a list of which they said seemed to grow every few days.

Justice Department officials first said the White House approved the ouster plan only after it was initiated by Justice, but e-mail messages have shown that officials at the White House initiated the effort, shortly after the 2004 elections.

Justice Department officials at first gave no reasons for the firings, then cited performance problems with the prosecutors, and, finally, acknowledged that performance could not be cited in each of the cases as the rationale for the firings.

Officials have said that politics played no role in the firings. But they later acknowledged that they had received repeated telephone calls from one Republican senator who sought the ouster of the New Mexico prosecutor, and that a second United States attorney, in Arkansas, was dismissed to make room for a former aide to Mr. Rove.

Stanley M. Brand, a lawyer in Washington and former Democratic counsel to the House, said the United States attorney matter was turning into a classic Washington saga, where statements made by public officials after the fact are as damaging as any role they may have played in the actual events.

“That is the classic conundrum that people get into, they obfuscate, or don’t tell the whole story, and that itself is what becomes the legal controversy,” Mr. Brand said. “The shifting story of what is at the bottom of these decisions on the United States attorneys is the primary reason that Congress keeps grinding away. That is always the fuel for these investigations.”

As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales has become a central figure, and increasingly, critics say, the emblem of ineptitude, in the swirl of contradictions, memory lapses and conflicting testimony that has defined the unfolding story behind the removal of the prosecutors.

Mr. Gonzales has taken responsibility for the dismissals, but he has not hesitated to place the bulk of the blame for the mishandling of the firings on Mr. Sampson’s shoulders.

In comments on March 13 at a news conference, and then again on March 14 in a television interview, Mr. Gonzales described himself as a chief executive of a large institution who delegated the task to one of his aides, and then never paid much attention to the execution of the plan.

“What I knew was that there was ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson, vetted through the Department of Justice, to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country,” Mr. Gonzales said. “But the charge for the chief of staff here was to drive this process, and the mistake that occurred here was that information that he had was not shared with individuals within the department who was then going to be providing testimony and information to the Congress.”

Mr. Gonzales also said, more explicitly: “I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.”

This directly conflicts with documents released late Friday, which show he headed an hourlong meeting on the ouster plan with key members of his senior staff 10 days before the firings.

Even before Mr. Gonzales left his position as White House counsel in February 2005 to become attorney general, Mr. Sampson told him that an effort had been initiated to examine which prosecutors, if any, should be ousted, e-mail messages released as part of the investigation show.

“Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) ‘how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.,’ ” said a January 2005 e-mail message from a White House official that was forwarded to Mr. Sampson.

Mr. Sampson replied with a detailed strategy for the newly begun effort, which he introduced by referring to Mr. Gonzales, a former Supreme Court judge in Texas: “Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago.”

The extent of the conflicts in testimony and public statements will most likely become even starker this coming week, when Mr. Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s former chief of staff, appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Sampson has voluntarily agreed to testify Thursday, and is expected to tell the Senate committee that his actions were widely known among senior Justice Department staff.

Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Friday evening that Mr. Gonzales’s attendance at the hourlong meeting in November regarding the pending ouster of the officials was not inconsistent with his past remarks.

“He tasked his chief of staff to carry this plan forward,” Ms. Scolinos said. “He did not participate in the selection of the U.S. attorneys to be fired. He did sign off on the final list.”

A senior administration official said on Saturday that, despite the documents released late Friday, Mr. Gonzales would survive the controversy, even if he “has to repair some credibility on the Hill.”

Republican Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, both former chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, said they were prepared to give Mr. Gonzales an opportunity to explain the apparent inconsistencies in his remarks.

“In my long experience with Attorney General Gonzales, he has always been straightforward and honest with me,” Mr. Hatch said Saturday in a statement. “So, unless there is clear evidence that the attorney general deliberately lied or misled Congress, I see no reason to call for his resignation.”

Mr. Specter said the attorney general would certainly face a long list of tough questions when he testifies before the Judiciary Committee next month.

“If he has not been candid about his role, then it is a serious matter,” Mr. Specter said. “His testimony will be a make-or-break day for him.”

Mr. Pit and Mr. Mac....

Let me suggest a few opinions about this entire affair and you guys can decide whether further action is appropriate.

1. 8 US Att'ys were fired for job performance reasons which may well include failure to vigorously probe politically motivated personal investigations of opposition members.
2. These same 8 were fired for too vigorously investigating politicians on the "right side" of the spectrum.

Are these firings subject to further review since they involve political investigations...covering political appointees?

If asked by another government entity, do more political appointees of the Executive branch have the right to fail to be completely forthcoming in sensitive matters of private conversations with their superiors?

If investigations continue as suggested and Gonzo plus his men admit to the above ... upon further review...what do you do ?

Once Justice Department officials appear to have LIED about it when testifying before congress,yes,it needs investigated. Had that not have happenned,maybe not.

So they testify under oath and claim that they were only partially aware of the total story and that that is all there is to say...then what"?????????????

Firing Squads...prison terms...let the punishment fit the crime???

So then,if they're innocent why the worry about testifying? What are you and they afraid of? Could it be that if it's proven those justice department officials DID lie to congress that it may very well open up a big can of worms?

You keep avoiding my questions,why is that?

If the Congress believes those officials lied to Congress,doesn't congress have a right to investigate it? Or should people be able to lie to Congress at will without fear of investigation? Why don't you actually address the questions and the issue here?

Republican support for attorney general erodes

Senators question his truthfulness; firing of prosecutor in GOP case is eyed

WASHINGTON - Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as three key senators sharply questioned his truthfulness and a Democrat joined the list of lawmakers who want him to resign over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales would have to step down if he did not tell the truth when he told Congress that he was not involved in discussions about a group of fired U.S. prosecutors at the center of the Washington controversy.

“We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful and if we find that he has not been candid and truthful, that’s a very compelling reason for him not to stay on,” Specter said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Specter said he would wait until Gonzales’ scheduled testimony next month to the committee on the dismissals before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general. He called it a “make or break” appearance.

Specter also suggested Bush compromise over the issue of Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political strategist, and other aides providing testimony to Congress.

To Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Gonzales “does have a credibility problem. ... We govern with one currency, and that’s trust. And that trust is all important. And when you lose or debase that currency, then you can’t govern. And I think he’s going to have some difficulties.”

Hagel cited changing stories from the Justice Department about the circumstances for firing the eight U.S. attorneys. “I don’t know if he got bad advice or if he was not involved in the day-to-day management. I don’t know what the problem is, but he’s got a problem. You cannot have the nation’s chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility,” Hagel said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Gonzales has been “wounded” by the firings. ‘He has said some things that just don’t add up,” said Graham, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

‘The nation is not well served by this’
Additionally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called for Gonzales to step down over his conflicting statements on how involved he was in the dismissals last fall. Democrats contend the prosecutors’ firings were politically motivated.

Feinstein, whose state lost two U.S. attorneys in the purge—in San Diego and San Francisco—joined a growing number of Democrats and Republicans in calling for Gonzales’ ouster. She said she now believes Gonzales has not told the truth about the firings.

“I believe he should step down,” said Feinstein, also on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “And I don’t like saying this. This is not my natural personality at all. But I think the nation is not well served by this. I think we need to get at the bottom of why these resignations were made, who ordered them, and what the strategy was.”

Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on Dec. 7 that Democrats contend were politically motivated.

His schedule, however, shows he attended at least one hourlong meeting, on Nov. 27, where he approved a detailed plan to execute the prosecutors’ firings.

The White House has stood by Gonzales, saying the documents do not conflict with Gonzales’ earlier statements. “The president continues to have confidence in the attorney general,” a spokesman said Saturday.

Feinstein spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” and Hagel was on “This Week” on ABC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17783788/

So the fact that the Attorney General may have lied to Congress is not an issue in your opinion? There are emails and meetings showing Gonzalez had known about these impending firings and that they very well likely been for political reasons. Even you and Coach have pretty well openly admitted they were. But Gonzalez told Congress they weren't.

Accountability and honesty when telling Congress what happenned isn't an issue? Have\ing the head of thje Justice Department lying to Congress isn't an issue?

Oh pulease..............................

Mr. Pit I believe that I have stated time and time again that they most likely did lie to whatever Congressional entity that previously questioned them. I do believe that they lied...I do believe that they lied...I do believe that they lied.

That is 4 more times.

Now when the investigation comes forward and they are put under oath they will state that they were not properly informed as to what took place...or that they felt that they should not discuss the details of the poor job performance of fellow appointees on a national stage. Take your pick...I will state once again that they were fired for political reasons and the poor job performance is only a slight part of it and probably only applied to 2 or 3 of the 8.

So now we have appointees under oath discussing other appointees' terminations...terminations that were decided by other appointees above them in rank who will also state that the job performance was a big issue but not the only reason....after all these were political appointees who served at the will of the President. That is until they didn't follow the program .

So what does that get then in terms of prison time for whomever you decide is guilty of whatever crime you decide to pin on them??? Lying to Congress is a crime and it occurs on the House and Senate floor each and every day that they are in session. Willful and intentional misrepresentation of the facts as understood by elected officials who seem to be immune from these same laws that we hold appointees to....

If they lied and or do lie under oath,they face the consequences as have others in the past. Plain and simple. That's WHY they need to be placed under oath! So they know they'll face prosecution if they DO lie.That's the only possibility we DO have of getting any truth out of this administration. And so far,it seems prison time and conviction is their prefrance over the truth!


The current emails already indicate that Gonzales DID lie as well as other Justice department officials. I've posted points of law that show this is illegal. I've also posted excerpts from some of the emails that point to them having lied. Time to get them under oath to find out the truth. If they "play dumb" on issues the emails PLAINLY show they're not dumb about "as has already been happenning" then they will face criminal prosecution.

Look,I heard pretty much the same crap about Libby. But the fact is? That crap didn't hold water. Four felony convictions prove that. So it's time for them to do one of two things. Either own up to their lies under oath. Or purger themselves to attempt to uphold some false "squeeky clean" image like Libby did and be prosecuted for it.

And Gonzales is up to his neck in it! He IS the head of the Justice department. So who are these "higher ups" you were refering to again?
*********************************************************************

A Test for Gonzales

April 2, 2007 issue - When dispirited Justice Department officials assembled for a senior staff meeting last Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales surprised them. "I just got off the phone with the president," he said, "and he told me he wants me to keep on fighting. And that's what we're going to do." At a news conference later that day, President George W. Bush said he supported Gonzales, defusing expectations that the embattled attorney general was about to resign. But behind the scenes, things remain tense between the White House and Justice over the U.S. attorney mess. A senior White House aide (who asked not to be ID'd talking about personnel matters) told NEWSWEEK that Gonzales still needs to "demonstrate competence and confidence."

The crucial test will come next month, when the A.G. is slated to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats plan to hammer Gonzales for his conflicting accounts of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. "The president isn't saying 'You better perform well or else'," said the White House aide. "But [Gonzales] understands that a huge step in repairing his relationship with Congress is to do well before them."

This week Gonzales's former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, is due to testify before the Senate panel. Justice e-mails show Sampson ranked prosecutors according to whether they were a "loyal Bushie," and coordinated the timing of the firings with White House officials—including aides to Karl Rove. Gonzales claimed he was unaware that the White House was so deeply involved. But Dems will press Sampson to explain how his boss could have been kept in the dark. His likely answer: Gonzales was "generally aware" of the firings but was not briefed on every "twist and turn," said a source familiar with Sampson's account (who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities). One e-mail released late last week shows Gonzales was briefed by Sampson on the firings on Nov. 27— just 10 days before they occurred.

Sampson is also expected to testify that Gonzales told him about complaints he had gotten from GOP Sen. Pete Domenici about one of the prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico. But Sampson "doesn't recall" why at the last minute Iglesias was put on the list of prosecutors to be fired. (Iglesias has charged Domenici pressured him to bring indictments in a corruption case implicating local Democrats—a claim Domenici has denied.) A Justice spokesman declined to comment, but confirmed that the firings are the subject of an internal Justice probe. Gonzales is trying to change the subject. This week he will conduct a media blitz about Project Safe Childhood, a program targeting Internet sex predators. Planned months ago, it was recently expanded, Justice officials say, to give Gonzales the chance to meet with local media (and visit with U.S. attorneys). "This is an issue near and dear to his heart," said a Justice spokesman.

—Michael Isikoff and Richard Wolffe

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17771345/site/newsweek/

Nah,nothing to investigate here.

Since you are so concerned about justice, when will you start calling for the heads of every other member of the government that lied to congress?

So Mr. Pit....Gonzo is an appointed, unelected official, he may face the swearing in procedure and he may tell the truth, something which resembles the truth, fail to remember the truth or continue to obstruct the witch hunt further.
His loyalty is to himself at this point....what do you think 8-25 in "pound me in the butt" federal prison?

I think that's up to a jury of his piers and a judge if and when he ever purgers himself. Or,maybe unlike Libby,he'll try telling the truth. That would be a pleasant change of pace.

LOL, Pit keeps trying to reinvent what is going on. Isn't it cute to watch him so desperately attack this administration? Pit, let's concede that someone did indeed lie to Congress about the terminations. It wasn't Gonzales. It wasn't Rove. It was ONE PERSON. THAT person is the one that would be guilty of a crime, NOT the justice departement, not the "officials". You are trying to convict people of a crime they didn't commit. More political BS that you are swallowing because of your bias against the administration. It's so sad.

Are you advocating that any time a Congressman or Senator tells a lie on the floor of the Congress that he should be investigated ????? because any day Congress is in session you will hear big ones,small ones,"little white" ones and bold face lies.

What this whole episode has done is to take Iraq off the front pages for awhile and to continue the surge program without microscipic analysis.

I say anyone who lied about firing 8 political appointees for political reasons from a political position that was received initially due to political connections
should be politically indicted and thrown into prison with murderers and child predators. That'll teach 'em not to act in a slimy political manner!!!

You keep ignopring the facts here.

The AG lied and in turn,so did several administration officials in order to "back up" his lie.

To find out if someone lied,don't you need to investigate it in order to prove od disprove it? Wouldn't that call for witnesses assaciated with what you consider "the lie" itself?

And again,for what seems like the 50th TIME!
If they have nothng to hide and did no wrong,why do you or ANYONE,including them,have a problem with tesitfying? Could you pl\ease answer this question? If there's nothing to hide,what's the big deal?

And for the 51st time I will tell you that if they are charged with wrongdoing and are subsequently sworn in to testify then they had better tell the truth.
Then we get into the realm of what the definition of "is" is!!!!

You keep suggesting that I believe that they did no wrong here...."If they have nothng to hide and did no wrong,why do you or ANYONE,including them,have a problem with tesitfying? Could you pl\ease answer this question? If there's nothing to hide,what's the big deal?"

If they lied as I have stated NUMEROUS TIMES because thats what politicians do best is to misinform and influence and lie...Yes...all of them from George Wasington to Lincoln and to Jimmy Carter do it.

Charge them with a crime and get it going!!!! To do otherwise is just more politics for show purposes.

Let me pose a very basic and simple question for you.

IF any law enforcement or Judicial branch feel there is "just cause for suspicion",isn't that the point that you "investigate it"? Do you "investigate" what you percieve to be the possible commital of a crime,build your case and gather evidence BEFORE pressing charges?

Or are you suggestiong people file charges without first investigating the matter to establish wheather they feel there is just cause to file those charges?

You see,you are suggesting they "file charges" BEFORE "investigating the matter". That's totally backwards from the way our system works. You investigate "suspicious activities" to find out the validity of the suspicions FIRST. Then,if there is just cause to go forward with charges,you file them at that point.

But hey,since the Patriot Act,nobody needs ANY reason,they can just investigate ANYBODY for ANYTHING! Accept for the people who promoted the Patriot Act in the first place? Funny how that works,huh?